Propidium Monoazide Combined With RT-qPCR Detects Infectivity of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus

✅ 全文

叠氮溴化丙锭联合RT-qPCR检测猪流行性腹泻病毒的感染性

作者 Gong Liang; Yunzhi Long; Qianqian Li; Liu Yang; Ying Huang; Daobing Yu; Wenbo Song; Mingguang Zhou; Gaoyuan Xu; Chao Huang; Xibiao Tang 期刊 Frontiers in Veterinary Science 发表日期 2022 卷/期/页码 Vol. 9 ISSN 2297-1769 DOI 10.3389/fvets.2022.931392 类型 原创研究 (Original Research)

📄 英文摘要 English Abstract

EN

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) allows sensitive detection of viral particles and viruses in epidemic samples but it cannot discriminate noninfectious viruses from infectious ones. Propidium monoazide (PMA) coupled with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was assessed to detect infectious viruses. Currently, there is no established test method to detect the infection of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV). In this study, propidium monoazide coupled with qPCR detects infectivity of PEDV. We optimized the method from the selection of primers, the working concentration of PMA, and the inactivation method using heat or ultraviolet (UV). The viruses which were treated with PMA before qPCR were inactivated using heat or UV. However, the addition of PMA alone did not affect the detection of live viruses, which indicates that a viral capsid break may be essential for PMA to bind to the genome. A repetition of the method on naked PEDV RNA suggests that it can be used to detect potentially infectious PEDV. The results indicated that an optimal plan of PMA could be extremely useful for evaluating infectious and noninfectious viruses.

📄 中文摘要 Chinese Abstract

中文
猪流行性腹泻病毒是一种单股RNA病毒,是引起猪流行性腹泻的重要病原体之一,对新生仔猪具有很高的致死率。2010年底,中国部分养猪省份曾暴发PEDV疫情。目前,PEDV感染在北美、欧洲和亚洲广泛流行。PEDV的暴发给全球造成了严重的经济损失。PEDV的检测方法包括免疫学检测、分子生物学检测和临床病毒分离等。然而,上述方法均无法区分感染性病毒与非感染性病毒。PMA是一种具有识别功能的染料,可与DNA分子结合。该染料能够进入受损细菌或病毒等DNA分子的小沟中。PMA分解后产生的物质与DNA分子形成共价交联,从而抑制受损微生物DNA的PCR扩增。研究表明,PMA可穿透受损细胞的膜,与DNA链形成共价键,从而抑制后续的PCR扩增。然而,PMA无法穿透具有生物活性的细胞。该方法已成功应用于多项既往研究中的病原微生物监测。PMA已被证明能够区分感染性与非感染性脊髓灰质炎病毒。然而,目前尚未有将PMA应用于PEDV病毒检测以区分感染性与非感染性病毒的研究报道。鉴于PEDV病毒检测中存在的现有问题,尤其是对PMA联合应用于检测活菌和RNA病毒的认识不足,本研究尝试采用基于PMA qPCR技术的方法来检测感染性PEDV。

📋 英文结构化总结 English Structured Summary

全文整理

EN

Background:

Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, a single-stranded RNA virus, is one of the significant pathogens causing porcine epidemic diarrhea, with high mortality in neonatal pigs. There were PEDV outbreaks in a few pig-producing provinces in China at the end of 2010. Currently, PEDV infection is widespread in North America, Europe, and Asia. The outbreak of PEDV causes serious economic losses all over the world. The detection methods for PEDV include immunological tests, molecular biological detection, and clinical virus isolation. However, none of the above methods can distinguish between infectious and noninfectious viruses. PMA is a dye with an identification function that can bind to DNA molecules. The dye can enter the small grooves of DNA molecules such as damaged bacteria or viruses. The decomposition of PMA produces substances that covalently cross-link with DNA molecules, thereby inhibiting the PCR amplification of DNA in damaged microorganisms. It has been shown that PMA can penetrate the membrane of compromised cells, leading to a covalent bond formation with the DNA strands, which inhibits subsequent PCR amplification. However, PMA cannot penetrate biologically active cells. This method has been successfully used for microbiological monitoring of pathogens in a number of previous studies. PMA was proven to distinguish between infectious and noninfectious poliovirus. However, there have been no reported studies of PMA being used in PEDV virus detection to distinguish between infectious and noninfectious viruses. Given the existing problems in PEDV virus detection, particularly with scant knowledge of the combined application of PMA to detect live bacteria and RNA viruses, this study attempted to use a method based on PMA qPCR technology for the detection of infectious PEDV.

Methods:

PEDV was extracted from clinical specimens in our laboratory. The clinical specimen was ground and centrifuged. The supernatant was collected, filtered, added to Vero cells, cultured in a 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator, blindly passed, and observed for cytopathic effect (CPE). After stable passage for four generations, the cell culture was frozen and thawed three times and centrifuged at 1,700 g at 4°C for 15 min. The supernatant was collected as the PEDV seed and stored at 4°C. The PEDV strain was then selected, inoculated into Vero cells, cultured at 37°C, 5% CO2, and cultivated in the box for 3 days. It was observed for cell CPE, after which the virus liquid was filtered, collected, and diluted 10-fold. The virus was inactivated in a water bath at 100°C for 30 min. For UV inactivation, the virus was subject to ultraviolet irradiation for 4 h. The infectivity of PEDV after inactivation by heat or UV was determined using CPE assays. To determine the effectiveness of different inactivation methods, the PMA working solution was added to live PEDV, the heat-inactivated PEDV, and the nucleic acids of PEDV or the UV-inactivated PEDV. To determine the effectiveness of different concentrations of PMA, the final concentrations of PMA were set as 10, 20, 50, and 100 µM. To assess the effectiveness of different primers, PEDV-S and N primers were used. In order to test the specificity of the primers and the inactivation methods, the recombinant plasmid pUC19-PEDV-N standard was prepared, and the amplification curve was established. The PEDV and control viruses such as swine fever virus, porcine pseudorabies virus, and porcine circovirus were selected as samples. Water was used as the control group. Samples of different treatments underwent PMA assays. PMA was mixed with samples and treated with a protective light for 15 min and then with the blue light of 100 W for 20 min, at the same time, and shaken one time at intervals of 5 min. The viral genome extraction kit was used for DNA extraction and PCR verification. Extracted RNA was thawed before the RT-qPCR assay. Primers for PEDV are presented in Table 1. The CFX96TM real-time PCR instrument was used for detection. Statistical comparisons were performed by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Each experiment was repeated at least three times and fluorescence signals were collected.

Results:

The CPE were not observed in this blank control group (Figure 1A). Figure 1B shows that the virus can cause cell lesions. The viruses which were treated with PMA before qPCR were inactivated using heat or UV. However, the addition of PMA alone did not affect the detection of live viruses, which indicates that a viral capsid break may be essential for PMA to bind to the genome. A repetition of the method on naked PEDV RNA suggests that it can be used to detect potentially infectious PEDV.

Data Summary:

The criteria for determining the detection of viruses were: (1) When the sample Ct value is ≤35, the sample was considered to be positive. (2) If the Ct value ranges between 35 and 40, and if the logarithmic amplification curve is curved, then the sample was judged to be suspicious positive. Alternatively, the sample was judged to be negative and the test was repeated. If the Ct value of the retested sample is ≤35, the suspicious sample was judged as positive. (3) If the sample has no Ct value or Ct value > 40, the sample is judged to be negative. The final concentrations of PMA tested were 10, 20, 50, and 100 µM. Primers used included PEDV-N (product length 232 bp, annealing temperature 56°C) and PEDV-S (product length 139 bp, annealing temperature 56°C).

Conclusions:

The results indicated that an optimal plan of PMA could be extremely useful for evaluating infectious and noninfectious viruses. This study attempted to use a method based on PMA qPCR technology for the detection of infectious PEDV.

Practical Significance:

The method distinguishes infectious from noninfectious PEDV, which is critical for diagnosing porcine epidemic diarrhea—a disease causing high mortality in neonatal pigs and serious economic losses in pig-producing regions worldwide. This PMA-based RT-qPCR approach can be applied to monitor PEDV infectivity in clinical samples, aiding in outbreak control and biosecurity measures.

📋 中文结构化总结 Chinese Structured Summary

中文

背景:

猪流行性腹泻病毒是一种单股RNA病毒,是引起猪流行性腹泻的重要病原体之一,对新生仔猪具有很高的致死率。2010年底,中国部分养猪省份曾暴发PEDV疫情。目前,PEDV感染在北美、欧洲和亚洲广泛流行。PEDV的暴发给全球造成了严重的经济损失。PEDV的检测方法包括免疫学检测、分子生物学检测和临床病毒分离等。然而,上述方法均无法区分感染性病毒与非感染性病毒。PMA是一种具有识别功能的染料,可与DNA分子结合。该染料能够进入受损细菌或病毒等DNA分子的小沟中。PMA分解后产生的物质与DNA分子形成共价交联,从而抑制受损微生物DNA的PCR扩增。研究表明,PMA可穿透受损细胞的膜,与DNA链形成共价键,从而抑制后续的PCR扩增。然而,PMA无法穿透具有生物活性的细胞。该方法已成功应用于多项既往研究中的病原微生物监测。PMA已被证明能够区分感染性与非感染性脊髓灰质炎病毒。然而,目前尚未有将PMA应用于PEDV病毒检测以区分感染性与非感染性病毒的研究报道。鉴于PEDV病毒检测中存在的现有问题,尤其是对PMA联合应用于检测活菌和RNA病毒的认识不足,本研究尝试采用基于PMA qPCR技术的方法来检测感染性PEDV。

方法:

PEDV从本实验室的临床标本中提取。将临床标本研磨离心,收集上清液,过滤后接种至Vero细胞,在37°C、5% CO2培养箱中培养,盲传并观察细胞病变效应(CPE)。稳定传代四代后,将细胞培养物冻融三次,在4°C下以1,700 g离心15分钟。收集上清液作为PEDV种毒,保存于4°C。随后选取PEDV毒株接种至Vero细胞,在37°C、5% CO2条件下培养3天,观察细胞CPE,之后将病毒液过滤收集并进行10倍稀释。病毒在100°C水浴中灭活30分钟。紫外线灭活则将病毒置于紫外线下照射4小时。采用CPE检测法测定热灭活或紫外线灭活后PEDV的感染性。为评估不同灭活方法的有效性,将PMA工作液分别加入活PEDV、热灭活PEDV、PEDV核酸或紫外线灭活PEDV中。为评估不同浓度PMA的有效性,PMA终浓度分别设置为10、20、50和100 µM。为评估不同引物的有效性,使用PEDV-S和N引物。为验证引物和灭活方法的特异性,制备了重组质粒pUC19-PEDV-N标准品,并建立了扩增曲线。选取PEDV及对照病毒(猪瘟病毒、猪伪狂犬病病毒和猪圆环病毒)作为样本,以水为对照组。不同处理的样本进行PMA检测。将PMA与样本混合,避光处理15分钟,然后用100 W蓝光照射20分钟,期间每隔5分钟振荡一次。使用病毒基因组提取试剂盒进行DNA提取和PCR验证。提取的RNA在RT-qPCR检测前解冻。PEDV引物见表1。使用CFX96TM实时荧光定量PCR仪进行检测。统计分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)。每个实验至少重复三次,并采集荧光信号。

结果:

空白对照组未观察到CPE(图1A)。图1B显示病毒可引起细胞病变。经PMA处理后再进行qPCR的病毒通过热灭活或紫外线灭活后,检测结果受到影响。然而,单独添加PMA不影响活病毒的检测,这表明病毒衣壳的破裂可能是PMA与基因组结合的必要条件。对裸露PEDV RNA进行该方法重复实验,结果表明该方法可用于检测具有潜在感染性的PEDV。

数据总结:

病毒检测的判定标准为:(1)当样本Ct值≤35时,判定为阳性。(2)若Ct值在35至40之间,且对数扩增曲线呈曲线形态,则判定为可疑阳性;否则判定为阴性并重新检测。若复检样本Ct值≤35,则该可疑样本判定为阳性。(3)若样本无Ct值或Ct值>40,则判定为阴性。测试的PMA终浓度分别为10、20、50和100 µM。所用引物包括PEDV-N(产物长度232 bp,退火温度56°C)和PEDV-S(产物长度139 bp,退火温度56°C)。

结论:

结果表明,优化的PMA方案在评估感染性与非感染性病毒方面具有极大的应用价值。本研究尝试采用基于PMA qPCR技术的方法来检测感染性PEDV。

实际意义:

该方法能够区分感染性与非感染性PEDV,这对于诊断猪流行性腹泻至关重要——该病对新生仔猪具有高致死率,并在全球养猪产区造成严重经济损失。这种基于PMA的RT-qPCR方法可用于监测临床样本中PEDV的感染性,有助于疫情控制和生物安全措施的实施。

📖 英文全文 English Full Text

EN

ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 15 July 2022 doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.931392

Propidium Monoazide Combined With RT-qPCR Detects Infectivity of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus Gong Liang*, Yunzhi Long, Qianqian Li, Liu Yang, Ying Huang, Daobing Yu, Wenbo Song, Mingguang Zhou, Gaoyuan Xu, Chao Huang* and Xibiao Tang* Diagnostic Center Department, Wuhan Keqian Biology Co., Ltd, Wuhan, China

Edited by: Tamaki Okabayashi, University of Miyazaki, Japan Reviewed by: Hiroshi Asakura, National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS), Japan Houqiang Luo, Wenzhou Vocational College of Science and Technology, China *Correspondence: Gong Liang 2731327322@qq.com Chao Huang 394511335@qq.com Xibiao Tang tangran77@126.vom Specialty section: This article was submitted to Veterinary Infectious Diseases, a section of the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science Received: 28 April 2022 Accepted: 09 June 2022 Published: 15 July 2022 Citation: Liang G, Long Y, Li Q, Yang L, Huang Y, Yu D, Song W, Zhou M, Xu G, Huang C and Tang X (2022) Propidium Monoazide Combined With RT-qPCR Detects Infectivity of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus. Front. Vet. Sci. 9:931392. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.931392

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) allows sensitive detection of viral particles and viruses in epidemic samples but it cannot discriminate noninfectious viruses from infectious ones. Propidium monoazide (PMA) coupled with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was assessed to detect infectious viruses. Currently, there is no established test method to detect the infection of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV). In this study, propidium monoazide coupled with qPCR detects infectivity of PEDV. We optimized the method from the selection of primers, the working concentration of PMA, and the inactivation method using heat or ultraviolet (UV). The viruses which were treated with PMA before qPCR were inactivated using heat or UV. However, the addition of PMA alone did not affect the detection of live viruses, which indicates that a viral capsid break may be essential for PMA to bind to the genome. A repetition of the method on naked PEDV RNA suggests that it can be used to detect potentially infectious PEDV. The results indicated that an optimal plan of PMA could be extremely useful for evaluating infectious and noninfectious viruses. Keywords: RT-qPCR, PEDV, PMA, infectivity, examine

INTRODUCTION Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, a single-stranded RNA virus, is one of the significant pathogens causing porcine epidemic diarrhea, with high mortality in neonatal pigs (1). There were PEDV outbreaks in a few pig-producing provinces in China at the end of 2010 (2). Currently, PEDV infection is widespread in North America, Europe, and Asia. The outbreak of PEDV causes serious economic losses all over the world (3). The detection methods for PEDV include immunological tests, molecular biological detection, and clinical virus isolation. However, none of the above methods can distinguish between infectious and noninfectious viruses. PMA is a dye with an identification function that can bind to DNA molecules. The dye can enter the small grooves of DNA molecules such as damaged bacteria or viruses. The decomposition of PMA produces substances that covalently cross-link with DNA molecules, thereby inhibiting the PCR amplification of DNA in damaged microorganisms. It has been shown that PMA can penetrate the membrane of compromised cells, leading to a covalent bond formation with the DNA strands, which inhibits subsequent PCR amplification (4, 5). However, PMA cannot penetrate biologically active cells (6). This method has been successfully used for microbiological monitoring of pathogens in a number of previous studies (7–9). PMA was proven to distinguish between infectious and noninfectious poliovirus (10). However, there

Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 931392 Liang et al. Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus

Samples of different treatments underwent PMA assays. PMA was mixed with samples and treated with a protective light for 15 min and then with the blue light of 100 W for 20 min, at the same time, and shaken one time at intervals of 5 min.

have been no reported studies of PMA being used in PEDV virus detection to distinguish between infectious and noninfectious viruses. Given the existing problems in PEDV virus detection, particularly with scant knowledge of the combined application of PMA to detect live bacteria and RNA viruses, this study attempted to use a method based on PMA qPCR technology for the detection of infectious PEDV.

Virus RNA Extraction and RT-qPCR The viral genome extraction kit was used for DNA extraction and PCR verification. Extracted RNA was thawed before the RTqPCR assay. Primers for PEDV are presented in Table 1. The CFX96TM real-time PCR instrument was used for detection.

METHODS Statistical Analysis Cell Culture and Virus Amplification

Statistical comparisons were performed by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Each experiment was repeated at least three times and fluorescence signals were collected. The criteria for determining the detection of viruses were as follows:

PEDV was extracted from clinical specimens in our laboratory. The clinical specimen was ground and centrifuged. The supernatant was collected, filtered, added to Vero cells, cultured in a 37◦ C, 5% CO2 incubator, blindly passed, and observed for cytopathic effect (CPE). After stable passage for four generations, the cell culture was frozen and thawed three times and centrifuged at 1,700 g at 4◦ C for 15 min. The supernatant was collected as the PEDV seed and stored at 4◦ C. The PEDV strain was then selected, inoculated into Vero cells, cultured at 37◦ C, 5% CO2, and cultivated in the box for 3 days. It was observed for cell CPE, after which the virus liquid was filtered, collected, and diluted 10-fold.

(1) When the sample Ct value is ≤35, the sample was considered to be positive. (2) If the Ct value ranges between 35 and 40, and if the logarithmic amplification curve is curved, then the sample was judged to be suspicious positive. Alternatively, the sample was judged to be negative and the test was repeated. If the Ct value of the retested sample is ≤35, the suspicious sample was judged as positive. (3) If the sample has no Ct value or Ct value > 40, the sample is judged to be negative.

Inactivation and CPE Assay The virus was inactivated in a water bath at 100◦ C for 30 min. For UV inactivation, the virus was subject to ultraviolet irradiation for 4 h. The infectivity of PEDV after inactivation by heat or UV was determined using CPE assays. The virus was inactivated, planted into cells, and cultured in an incubator for 3 days. Then, the cells were examined under a microscope.

RESULTS CPE Assay The CPE were not observed in this blank control group (Figure 1A). Figure 1B shows that the virus can cause cell lesions compared to the blank control group when the virus is untreated. When the PEDV was inactivated by heat, it did not display CPE (Figure 1C). The UV-inactivated group too did not have CPE (Figure 1D). It shows that PEDV can be effectively inactivated by heat or UV treatments.

Viral Infectivity Assays To determine the effectiveness of different inactivation methods, the PMA working solution was added to live PEDV, the heatinactivated PEDV, and the nucleic acids of PEDV or the UVinactivated PEDV. To determine the effectiveness of different concentrations of PMA, the final concentrations of PMA were set as 10, 20, 50, and 100 µM. To assess the effectiveness of different primers, PEDV-S and N primers were used. In order to test the specificity of the primers and the inactivation methods, the recombinant plasmid pUC19-PEDV-N standard was prepared, and the amplification curve was established (11). The PEDV and control viruses such as swine fever virus, porcine pseudorabies virus, and porcine circovirus were selected as samples. Water was used as the control group.

The Influence of PMA QPCR on the Detection of PEDV The Ct values of the two groups with the PEDV live virus (①②) were 20.56 and 20.36. The Ct values of the two groups with PMA added to the PEDV live virus (③④) were both 22.07, which was <35, indicating that the sample was positive (Figure 2). The control group did not have a Ct value, and the sample was negative. It indicated that the PMA had a minor effect on the PEDV virus detection results. Overall, PMA could be used for PEDV virus detection.

TABLE 1 | Primer. Amplified genes Primer sequences (5’→ 3’) PEDV-N F: AGCAACAGCAGAAGCCTAAGCA Annealing temperature/◦ C Product length/bp 56 232 56 139 R: GCATAGCCTGACGCATCAACAC PEDV-S F: CCTGCGTTCGGTAGTGGTGTTAA R:TATACTTGGTACACACACATCCAGAGTCA

Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 931392 Liang et al. Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus FIGURE 1 | CPE assay. (A) blank group; (B) cytopathic effect; (C) heat treatment; (D) UV treatment.

FIGURE 2 | Effect of PMA on the qPCR detection of porcine pseudorabies virus. PMA QPCR on Naked Viral RNA TABLE 2 | The effectiveness of PMA.

As shown in Table 2, PMA can effectively inhibit the amplification of naked viral nucleic acid (P < 0.05). Group

PMA RT-qPCR on Infectious and UV-Inactivated Viruses These results indicate that the PMA treatment to differentiate between infectious and UV-inactivated viruses had no effect (The result was marginal).

The control group 35.43 ± 0.51a PEDV 25.72 ± 0.34b PEDV+PMA 35.52 ± 0.42a Different letters indicate significant differences (a–c) (P < 0.05).

When the final concentrations of PMA were 50 and 100 µM, the Ct value of the PEDV live virus also was <35, but it was more than 35 in PEDV heat-inactivated virus. When the final concentration of PMA was 50–100 µM, PEDV-N primers were used for qPCR amplification to distinguish between PEDV live viruses and PEDV heat-inactivated virus.

Optimization of Primers and the Concentration of PMA To determine the effectiveness of different primers, the primers of PEDV-S and N were tested. When using the PEDV-S primers in the final concentration of PMA, the sample Ct value was ≤35 (Table 3). Therefore, the primer of PEDV-S could not be used to determine whether the PEDV virus was infectious. In the PEDV-N primers, the live and heat-inactivated PEDV were detected by the PMA qPCR, and the Ct values were <35 when the final concentration of PMA was 10 and 20 µM (Table 3).

Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org Ct

Specificity of Primers The qPCR amplification was performed in all the PEDV live virus groups. The results had a Ct value of about 20 and <35, indicating that the samples were positive (Figure 3). The

3 July 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 931392 Liang et al. Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus TABLE 3 | Two primers to determine the effectiveness of different PMA concentrations. Primer Treatment PEDV-S PEDV-N

Virus inactivation 10 µM 20 µM 50 µM 100 µM No + + + + Yes + + + + No + + + + Yes + + - - FIGURE 3 | Specificity of primers.

the logarithm of copy number and y is Ct value; R2 = 0.9814), when the virus stock was amplified, the Ct value was the same (28.15) and the copy number was 4002.62 copy/µL. When virus stock was diluted 10-fold, the Ct value was 30.05, and the copy number was 971.13 copy/µL. The highest copy number of PEDV detected by PMA qPCR was 971.13 copy/µL. Therefore, in the case of infectious PEDV detected by PMA qPCR (when the virus was diluted 10-fold, and the copy number of the virus was 971.13 copy/µL), the primers designed by the N gene were used for qPCR amplification to distinguish whether PEDV was infectious or not.

control viruses did not have a Ct value, and the results of heat/UV -inactivated samples were all negative, which indicated that the PMA qPCR method, designed for the first time in this study, had obvious specificity and showed accuracy in detecting PEDV. The preparation method of the standard substance is to insert the PEDV-N gene fragment into PUC19 by using the amplification primer determined in the previous step to form the recombinant plasmid. After the copy number of the recombinant plasmid concentration prepared thus was measured, it was diluted 10-fold and the qPCR amplification was performed. The amplification results are shown in Figure 4A. The regression equation of the standard curve was y = −3.0891x + 39.278. According to the formula, E = 10−1/K -1 (where E is the amplification efficiency and K is the slope of the standard curve), the amplification efficiency was 110.73%, indicating that the primers provided had sufficient sensitivity (11).

PMA RT-qPCR on Infectious and Heat-Inactivated Viruses Figure 5 shows that the Ct values of the PEDV live virus in two groups (①②) were 20.30 and 20.77, respectively. The Ct values (⑤⑥) of PEDV live virus +PMA were 22.18 and 22.17, respectively. The Ct values of the PEDV heat-inactivated groups (③④) were 21.06 and 21.05, respectively. The Ct values of the PEDV live virus group, the PEDV live virus +PMA group, and the heat-inactivated PEDV virus group were <35, which indicated that the samples were all positive. The inactivated PEDV virus + PMA group (⑦⑧) and the water control group (⑨⑩) did not have a Ct value, and the samples were negative.

Effectiveness of Different Virus Dilution Ratios The virus stock had a Ct value of 28.15 when was used for amplification. It changed to 30.05 when it was diluted 10-fold (Table 4). According to the standard curve regression equation used in Figure 4B (y = −3.0891x + 39.278, where x represents

Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 931392 Liang et al. Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus FIGURE 4 | Drawing a standard curve. (A) Amplification curve. (B) Standard curve.

The results indicated that the method presented in this study can effectively detect infectious PEDV. TABLE 4 | Effectiveness of different virus dilution ratios. DISCUSSION Control Dilution

The outbreak of PEDV causes serious economic losses throughout the world. Currently, the detection methods for PEDV include immunological tests, molecular biological tests, and clinical virus isolation. However, immunological tests that cannot detect the infectivity status of the microorganisms are problematic. Therefore, the need to develop a rapid, accurate, and simple method that detects infectious PEDV and conducts real-time monitoring of PEDV is rather urgent. The nucleic acid detection methods based on PCR, such as PCR, qPCR, RT-LAMP, and RT-RPA, have the advantages of high detection sensitivity, strong specificity, and fast detection speed. A double ultrasensitive nanoparticle DNA probe-based PCR assay for testing and distinguishing diagnosis of PEDV (12) is also available. There also exists a fast differentiation of the two strains of PEDV via an amplification assay (13). However, none of the above methods can distinguish between infectious and noninfectious viruses. Additionally, the PEDV test used in the sample is likely to lead to false-positive results because the virus genome can still be detected for a short period of time after the virus dies. PMA in RTPCR has been used previously to detect infectious enteric viruses (14, 15). With regard to the concentration of PMA to be used, in the present study, we found that a concentration of 50–100 µM is effective (15, 16). Karim et al. (16) reported that PMA was able to differentiate between infectious and noninfectious murine norovirus (MNV) only when inactivation was done by chlorine. The addition of PMA alone does not affect the detection of live viruses. While UV prevents the virus from replicating, it does not destroy the cell membrane of the virus. PMA, therefore, cannot still enter the virus cell and bind to the viral genome, and there

Frontiers in Veterinary Science | www.frontiersin.org Infectivity Non-infectivity 0 0 1 28.15 ± 0.13c 30.42 ± 0.31 10 30.05 ± 0.41b 0 100 33.42 ± 0.54a 0 1000 0 0 Different letters indicate significant differences (a–c) (P < 0.05).

is no way to identify the infectivity of the virus. The varying efficiency of PMA to distinguish noninfectious from infectious viral particles might be owing to the degree of RNA or capsid damage induced by each inactivation method. In our study, PEDV was heat treated with a water bath at 100◦ C for 30 min and PEDV lost its infectivity. The results also showed that PEDV lost its infectivity when exposed to UV. It has been proven that the PMA binding mechanism is critical to distinguishing between infectious and noninfectious microorganisms (17–21). PMA’s comparable effectiveness in detecting infectious PEDV when treated by heat or UV was examined in this study. The PMA coupled with RT-qPCR developed in this study specifically targets PEDV, providing a useful method for clinical diagnostic laboratories. The frequent spread of African Swine Fever (ASF) has received a high level of attention due to the threat posed to pig farming worldwide (22). There is a need, therefore, to establish an optimal way of determining the infectivity of ASF.

CONCLUSION PMA combined with RT-qPCR could be very effective for determining infectious and noninfectious viruses. 5 July 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 931392 Liang et al. Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus FIGURE 5 | PMA RT-qPCR on infectious and heat-inactivated viruses.

📖 中文全文 Chinese Full Text

中文

# 原始研究

**发表日期:** 2022年7月15日 **DOI:** 10.3389/fvets.2022.931392

## 叠氮丙啶单氧化物联合RT-qPCR检测猪流行性腹泻病毒的感染性

**龚亮*,龙云志,李倩倩,杨柳,黄莹,余道冰,宋文博,周明光,许高元,黄超*,唐西彪***

诊断中心部门,武汉科前生物股份有限公司,中国武汉

**编辑:** 冈林玉明,日本宫崎大学

**审稿人:** 朝仓博,日本国立健康科学研究所(NIHS) 罗后强,温州科技职业学院

**通讯作者:** 龚亮:2731327322@qq.com 黄超:394511335@qq.com 唐西彪:tangran77@126.com

**专刊栏目:** 本文投稿至《兽医科学前沿》期刊"兽医传染病"栏目

**收稿日期:** 2022年4月28日 **接受日期:** 2022年6月9日 **发表日期:** 2022年7月15日

**引用格式:** Liang G, Long Y, Li Q, Yang L, Huang Y, Yu D, Song W, Zhou M, Xu G, Huang C and Tang X (2022) Propidium Monoazide Combined With RT-qPCR Detects Infectivity of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus. Front. Vet. Sci. 9:931392. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.931392

---

逆转录-定量聚合酶链式反应(RT-qPCR)能够灵敏地检测流行病样本中的病毒颗粒和病毒,但无法区分非感染性病毒与感染性病毒。本研究评估了叠氮丙啶单氧化物(PMA)与定量聚合酶链式反应(qPCR)联用检测感染性病毒的方法。目前,尚无成熟的检测方法用于检测猪流行性腹泻病毒(PEDV)的感染性。本研究采用叠氮丙啶单氧化物联合qPCR检测PEDV的感染性。我们从引物选择、PMA工作浓度以及加热或紫外线(UV)灭活方法等方面对该方法进行了优化。在进行qPCR之前,经PMA处理的病毒通过加热或紫外线进行灭活。然而,单独添加PMA不影响活病毒的检测,这表明病毒衣壳的破裂可能是PMA与基因组结合的必要条件。将该方法应用于裸露的PEDV RNA检测,结果表明该方法可用于检测具有潜在感染性的PEDV。研究结果表明,优化的PMA方案对于评估感染性和非感染性病毒具有极大的应用价值。

**关键词:** RT-qPCR,PEDV,PMA,感染性,检测

---

## 引言

猪流行性腹泻病毒(PEDV)是一种单股RNA病毒,是引起猪流行性腹泻的重要病原体之一,对新生仔猪具有高致死率(1)。2010年末,中国部分养猪省份暴发了PEDV疫情(2)。目前,PEDV感染在北美、欧洲和亚洲广泛流行。PEDV的暴发在全球范围内造成了严重的经济损失(3)。

PEDV的检测方法包括免疫学检测、分子生物学检测和临床病毒分离。然而,上述方法均无法区分感染性病毒与非感染性病毒。PMA是一种具有识别功能的染料,能够与DNA分子结合。该染料可进入受损细菌或病毒等DNA分子的小沟中。PMA分解后产生的物质与DNA分子形成共价交联,从而抑制受损微生物DNA的PCR扩增。研究表明,PMA能够穿透受损细胞的膜,与DNA链形成共价键,从而抑制后续的PCR扩增(4, 5)。然而,PMA无法穿透具有生物活性的细胞(6)。该方法已在多项前人研究中成功应用于病原微生物的监测(7–9)。PMA已被证明能够区分感染性和非感染性脊髓灰质炎病毒(10)。然而,目前尚未有将PMA应用于PEDV病毒检测以区分感染性和非感染性病毒的研究报道。

鉴于PEDV病毒检测中存在的现有问题,特别是关于PMA联合应用于检测活菌和RNA病毒的知识匮乏,本研究尝试采用基于PMA qPCR技术的方法来检测感染性PEDV。

---

## 方法

### 细胞培养与病毒扩增

PEDV从本实验室的临床标本中提取。将临床标本研磨并离心,收集上清液,过滤后接种至Vero细胞,在37°C、5% CO₂培养箱中培养,盲传并观察细胞病变效应(CPE)。稳定传代四代后,将细胞培养物冻融三次,在4°C下以1700 g离心15分钟,收集上清液作为PEDV种毒,保存于4°C。随后选取PEDV毒株接种至Vero细胞,在37°C、5% CO₂条件下培养3天,观察细胞CPE,之后将病毒液过滤、收集并进行10倍稀释。

### 灭活与CPE检测

将病毒在100°C水浴中灭活30分钟。对于紫外线灭活,将病毒置于紫外线下照射4小时。通过CPE检测评估经加热或紫外线灭活后PEDV的感染性。将灭活后的病毒接种至细胞,在培养箱中培养3天,然后在显微镜下观察细胞。

### PMA检测

不同处理的样本进行PMA检测。将PMA与样本混合,避光处理15分钟,然后用100 W蓝光照射20分钟,同时每隔5分钟振荡一次。

### 病毒RNA提取与RT-qPCR

使用病毒基因组提取试剂盒进行DNA提取和PCR验证。在进行RT-qPCR检测前将提取的RNA解冻。PEDV引物见表1。使用CFX96™实时荧光定量PCR仪进行检测。

### 统计分析

采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)进行统计学比较。每个实验至少重复三次并采集荧光信号。病毒检测的判定标准如下:

(1)当样本Ct值≤35时,判定样本为阳性。 (2)若Ct值在35至40之间,且对数扩增曲线呈曲线形态,则判定样本为可疑阳性;否则判定为阴性并重复检测。若复检样本Ct值≤35,则判定可疑样本为阳性。 (3)若样本无Ct值或Ct值>40,则判定样本为阴性。

---

## 结果

### CPE检测

空白对照组未观察到CPE(图1A)。图1B显示,与空白对照组相比,未经处理的病毒可引起细胞病变。PEDV经加热灭活后未显示CPE(图1C)。紫外线灭活组同样未出现CPE(图1D)。结果表明,加热或紫外线处理均可有效灭活PEDV。

### 病毒感染性检测

为评估不同灭活方法的有效性,将PMA工作液分别加入活PEDV、热灭活PEDV、PEDV核酸或紫外线灭活PEDV中。为评估不同浓度PMA的有效性,将PMA终浓度设置为10、20、50和100 µM。为评估不同引物的有效性,使用PEDV-S和N引物。为验证引物和灭活方法的特异性,制备了重组质粒pUC19-PEDV-N标准品,并建立了扩增曲线(11)。选取PEDV及对照病毒(如猪瘟病毒、猪伪狂犬病病毒和猪圆环病毒)作为样本,以水作为对照组。

### PMA qPCR对PEDV检测的影响

两组PEDV活病毒(①②)的Ct值分别为20.56和20.36。向PEDV活病毒中添加PMA的两组(③④)Ct值均为22.07,小于35,表明样本为阳性(图2)。对照组无Ct值,样本为阴性。结果表明PMA对PEDV病毒检测结果影响较小。总体而言,PMA可用于PEDV病毒检测。

**表1 | 引物**

| 扩增基因 | 引物序列(5'→3') | 退火温度/°C | 产物长度/bp | |---|---|---|---| | PEDV-N | F: AGCAACAGCAGAAGCCTAAGCA | 56 | 232 | | | R: GCATAGCCTGACGCATCAACAC | 56 | | | PEDV-S | F: CCTGCGTTCGGTAGTGGTGTTAA | 56 | 139 | | | R: TATACTTGGTACACACACATCCAGAGTCA | | |

**图1 | CPE检测。** (A) 空白组;(B) 细胞病变效应;(C) 热处理;(D) 紫外线处理。

**图2 | PMA对猪伪狂犬病病毒qPCR检测的影响。**

### PMA qPCR对裸露病毒RNA的检测

如表2所示,PMA能有效抑制裸露病毒核酸的扩增(P < 0.05)。

**表2 | PMA的有效性**

| 组别 | Ct值 | |---|---| | 对照组 | 35.43 ± 0.51ᵃ | | PEDV | 25.72 ± 0.34ᵇ | | PEDV+PMA | 35.52 ± 0.42ᵃ |

不同字母表示差异显著(a–c)(P < 0.05)。

### PMA qPCR对感染性和紫外线灭活病毒的检测

结果表明,PMA处理区分感染性与紫外线灭活病毒的效果不明显(结果处于临界值)。

当PMA终浓度为50和100 µM时,PEDV活病毒的Ct值也<35,但PEDV热灭活病毒的Ct值大于35。当PMA终浓度为50–100 µM时,使用PEDV-N引物进行qPCR扩增可区分PEDV活病毒与PEDV热灭活病毒。

### 引物与PMA浓度的优化

为评估不同引物的有效性,测试了PEDV-S和N引物。当使用PEDV-S引物时,在不同PMA终浓度下,样本Ct值均≤35(表3)。因此,PEDV-S引物不能用于判断PEDV病毒是否具有感染性。在使用PEDV-N引物时,通过PMA qPCR检测活的和热灭活的PEDV,当PMA终浓度为10和20 µM时,Ct值均<35(表3)。

**表3 | 两种引物在不同PMA浓度下的有效性**

| 引物 | 处理 | 10 µM | 20 µM | 50 µM | 100 µM | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | PEDV-S | 未灭活 | + | + | + | + | | | 灭活 | + | + | + | + | | PEDV-N | 未灭活 | + | + | + | + | | | 灭活 | + | + | - | - |

### 引物特异性

在所有PEDV活病毒组中均进行了qPCR扩增。结果显示Ct值约为20且<35,表明样本为阳性(图3)。对照病毒无Ct值,热/紫外线灭活样本的结果均为阴性,表明本研究首次设计的PMA qPCR方法具有明显的特异性,在检测PEDV方面表现出准确性。

标准品的制备方法是将PEDV-N基因片段插入PUC19中,使用前期确定的扩增引物形成重组质粒。测定所制备重组质粒浓度的拷贝数后,进行10倍稀释并进行qPCR扩增。扩增结果如图4A所示。标准曲线的回归方程为y = −3.0891x + 39.278。根据公式E = 10⁻¹/ᴷ − 1(其中E为扩增效率,K为标准曲线斜率),扩增效率为110.73%,表明所用引物具有足够的灵敏度(11)。

**图3 | 引物特异性。**

**图4 | 绘制标准曲线。** (A) 扩增曲线;(B) 标准曲线。

当扩增病毒原液时,Ct值相同(28.15),拷贝数为4002.62拷贝/µL。当病毒原液稀释10倍时,Ct值为30.05,拷贝数为971.13拷贝/µL。通过PMA qPCR检测到的PEDV最高拷贝数为971.13拷贝/µL。因此,在通过PMA qPCR检测感染性PEDV的情况下(当病毒稀释10倍且病毒拷贝数为971.13拷贝/µL时),使用N基因设计的引物进行qPCR扩增以区分PEDV是否具有感染性。

### PMA RT-qPCR对感染性和热灭活病毒的检测

图5显示,两组PEDV活病毒(①②)的Ct值分别为20.30和20.77。PEDV活病毒+PMA组(⑤⑥)的Ct值分别为22.18和22.17。PEDV热灭活组(③④)的Ct值分别为21.06和21.05。PEDV活病毒组、PEDV活病毒+PMA组和热灭活PEDV病毒组的Ct值均<35,表明样本均为阳性。灭活PEDV病毒+PMA组(⑦⑧)和水对照组(⑨⑩)无Ct值,样本为阴性。

**图5 | PMA RT-qPCR对感染性和热灭活病毒的检测。**

### 不同病毒稀释比例的有效性

病毒原液扩增时Ct值为28.15,稀释10倍后变为30.05(表4)。根据图4B中使用的标准曲线回归方程(y = −3.0891x + 39.278,其中x为拷贝数的对数值,y为Ct值;R² = 0.9814),结果表明本研究提出的方法能有效检测感染性PEDV。

**表4 | 不同病毒稀释比例的有效性**

| 稀释倍数 | 感染性 | 非感染性 | |---|---|---| | 0 | 28.15 ± 0.13ᶜ | 30.42 ± 0.31 | | 10 | 30.05 ± 0.41ᵇ | 0 | | 100 | 33.42 ± 0.54ᵃ | 0 | | 1000 | 0 | 0 |

不同字母表示差异显著(a–c)(P < 0.05)。

---

## 讨论

PEDV的暴发在全球范围内造成了严重的经济损失。目前,PEDV的检测方法包括免疫学检测、分子生物学检测和临床病毒分离。然而,无法检测微生物感染性状态的免疫学检测方法存在局限性。因此,亟需开发一种快速、准确且简便的方法来检测感染性PEDV并对PEDV进行实时监测。

基于PCR的核酸检测方法(如PCR、qPCR、RT-LAMP和RT-RPA)具有检测灵敏度高、特异性强和检测速度快的优点。也有基于双超敏纳米粒子DNA探针的PCR检测方法用于PEDV的检测和鉴别诊断(12)。还存在通过扩增检测快速区分PEDV两种毒株的方法(13)。然而,上述方法均无法区分感染性病毒与非感染性病毒。此外,样本中使用的PEDV检测可能导致假阳性结果,因为病毒基因组在病毒死亡后短时间内仍可被检测到。PMA联合RT-PCR此前已被用于检测感染性肠道病毒(14, 15)。

关于PMA的使用浓度,在本研究中,我们发现50–100 µM的浓度是有效的(15, 16)。Karim等(16)报道,PMA仅在氯灭活条件下才能区分感染性和非感染性小鼠诺如病毒(MNV)。单独添加PMA不影响活病毒的检测。虽然紫外线能阻止病毒复制,但不会破坏病毒的细胞膜。因此,PMA仍无法进入病毒细胞并与病毒基因组结合,也就无法识别病毒的感染性。PMA区分非感染性与感染性病毒颗粒的效率差异可能归因于每种灭活方法引起的RNA或衣壳损伤程度不同。在本研究中,PEDV在100°C水浴中处理30分钟后失去感染性。结果还表明,PEDV在紫外线照射下也失去了感染性。已证明PMA的结合机制对于区分感染性和非感染性微生物至关重要(17–21)。本研究考察了PMA在加热或紫外线处理下检测感染性PEDV的等效性。

本研究开发的PMA联合RT-qPCR方法特异性靶向PEDV,为临床诊断实验室提供了一种实用方法。非洲猪瘟(ASF)的频繁传播因其对全球养猪业的威胁而受到高度关注(22)。因此,有必要建立确定ASF感染性的最佳方法。

---

## 结论

PMA联合RT-qPCR对于确定感染性和非感染性病毒非常有效。